I was looking at African countries population growth, wondering how it could be possible that they have increased their populations 10 fold since the 1950's.. while also experiencing famine, economic devastation, aids, ebola, civil wars and so forth.

Each nation is said to have averaged 8 children who survived to adulthood per woman through all those years. This is twice the American baby boom fertility rate of 4 children per woman.

So I asked, where do these population numbers come from. And it turns out in the nations I looked at, each province carries out its own census. In the last Nigerian census, Lagos province counted 9 million inhabitants. But was shocked to find that Kano, the Northern commercial center of Nigeria had risen at unbelievable speed to 9.4 million.. becoming the largest city in Nigeria.

So the Lagos officials, decided to do a 'recount', and after going through their arithmetic they found they missed a few people. The new tally came to 17 million. Which not only was accepted by the Nigerian government, but accepted as the Gospel truth by the UN and other Western institutions.

Distribution of foreign aid money, which accounts for 50% of the average African nation's government budgets, is based on relative population numbers. Relative to the other beneficiaries of foreign aid. And within each nation, provinces are appointed seats in the legislature and proportionate transfer payments based on population.

Today Nigeria is listed as having 178 million people. As many people as America has east of the Mississippi - on a land area 1/3rd the size of America east of the Mississippi.

That's very interesting. Considering the CIA proudly boasts population numbers as one of its main (only?) actual services to the tax-paying public, I wonder where they get their data? Shouldn't it be a simple matter of sharing their methods if it would be so difficult to fake/reproduce?

Interesting story; I wonder if there is another side to this? Could that particular population finally have been "settled" then?

Good question, from my initial reading my impression was their data comes from the ever reliable African government censuses. I will look into that.

Another example, maybe the most egregious, is India's claimed 1,250 million people. India is about the same geographic size as America east of the Mississippi. But eastern America has 178 million people. Which would mean India has 7 times the population density as the eastern USA.

If India has in reality 450 million people, that would still be as populace as the European Union, on 3/4ths the land area. And its not like Europe is sparsely populated, with a lack of large cities.

But the difference between 1,250 million and 450 million is 800 million people.

India - 1,288 million (I guess they added on 38 million since the last time I looked)Indonesia - 258 millionPakistan - 193 millionNigeria - 186 million (tack on an extra 8 million since I looked)Bangladesh - 160 million (does 33 times the US population density sound remotely plausible?)Philippines - 103 millionEthiopia - 92 million (remember they were allegedly all starving in the 1980's back when they claimed to have 30 million people)Egypt - 90 millionDemocratic Republic of the Congo - 85 million (surpassed Germany I guess)Tanzania - 55 million

I'll stop at these 10 for now.. adding up their populations it is 2,510m people. Using my India estimating which says 1/3rd the claimed amount is more plausible, although still seems on the high side.. that would be an overstatement of 1,673m on these 10.

Dont know what made this chart exploded since 1900. Charts are so exponential and one of the major cause of Global Warming.

The Big Bang? The Baby Boom? Or perhaps a statistical slap shot?

Great find, that guy is assuming that the data in the chart is accurate. I could make the population look like it has fallen since 1900 using excel spreadsheet, and I'm not even a scientist.

Around the developing world for the last 40-50 years, people are leaving the rural communities - as farm combines and other farm automation take over, requiring a fraction of the workers. They move to the big cities, as happened in Europe and America. In this same general time period, there has been the advent of the birth control pill and other contraceptives. It didn't take long for the birth control pill to spread to the entire developing world, and then to become dirt cheap.

To believe these world historic population growth rates, we would have to believe young women heading to the cities and having access to near free birth control pills, would see an unprecedented RISE in their fertility rates. And amazingly they would be doing this, while also entering the work force.

Edit to add: My feeling is most of these developing nations are already in population decline or close to it. To the people living in cities in those nations it would not seem like it, because as their countrymen left the rural farming areas and came to just a few major cities, the city they lived in would be growing rapidly.

That happens in the USA too. People move to the booming cities for economic opportunity. Which are also the largest cities. They look around with their eyes, and their world seems very crowded with people, with more coming every day. They make the assumption that everywhere is like their city. Not factoring in that the valley they came from is now deserted. I saw this same fallacy with real estate prices - yes in the huge cities where people moved to prices went up. But factor in the deserted towns and cities - and a totally different price trend line emerges.

The thing is if you are in the business of charities and agencies attempting to transfer money from peoples bank accounts, to your own bank account - a world of stable or declining population is just not alarming at all.

I notice with many government claims, there is a 'Ripley's believe it or not' aspect to them. I was making my argument to a friend that the population growth rates of many developing nations seem unbelievable, but he felt I did not have enough evidence to prove my lower estimates. However, I flipped the question around, and asked, have you seen more compelling evidence that supports the claims of say a nation like Bangladesh which claims to have rapidly grown to 33 times the US population density.

Ultimately it came down to he believed that the UN, along with the Bangladeshi, Indian and African authorities were honest. He felt that it is unthinkable they would lie on a large scale like that. So I asked another question, what of a religious person who believes the senior priests of the religion are really in communication with god(s). That religious person must also find it unthinkable that the leaders of the religion would lie about their divine communications.

The next path he had to take, was what difference does it make? And this is the crux of the issue, where the hoax has real implications. In isolation whether Bangladesh has 17 million or 170 million as claimed is just a factoid. But these facts are not presented to people in isolation. These alarmist numbers and projections are always followed by an urgent demand for more money and power handed over to authorities.

If the population of Earth is ~3.5 billion and barely growing as I believe, then we are not talking a full blown crisis with the clock ticking. On the other hand if there is ~7 billion people and adding 70 million more every year, then severe action must be taken. And 'coincidentally' the organizations coming out with these alarmist numbers are the same organizations who would be scaled up massively in money and power to carry out those severe actions.

Even if there were 7 billion people on this planet, I still don't think that it calls for "extreme action" in any sense of the phrase, climate change or whatever other nonsense they want to create to push the alarmism. Overpopulation is essentially a myth and here's an interesting website that takes on that very case.

That is a good point. For instance with whatever the world's population is, I don't see shortages of food, as I look at the people out and about. Or if we are close to the edge, why is the government spending incredible sums of money to pay farmers to not grow food crops.

The urbanization is another big aspect. When people are spread out in villages, doing primitive low yield farming - mankind's footprint on the environment is very large per person. On the other hand, living in a large, high density city, with farming done with modern science & technology(which during the 20th century American farmers increased the crop yield/acre by an astonishing 1200%) - the per person footprint is much smaller.

And across the developing world, people are migrating from their low yield farm plots, to the cities for higher paying work. At the same time reforms are being made in most developing countries, allowing for larger scale, larger yield/acre farming.

In the official story, those young women who are leaving their home villages and going to the big cities in the developing world, are having 6 children each.

I've also believed for a while that world populations are invented out of thin air. Who can ever know the truth? To me, it comes down to two main principles in play. Firstly, that if you invent a person born into a life of poverty in some poor country, you can then receive more charity from industrialized countries for that person. So why would you ever not lie? Fake people also allows for a larger, fake economy, upon which you can then invest and acquire fake money. It's all smoke and mirrors. Secondly, the bigger you state your population is, the more of a 'main player' you can assume on the world stage. Those very same countries that you cite like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, NIgeria are all perfect examples of this, notably also with them starting up space programs or acquring the power to make nuclear bombs/reactors. All these lies go hand in hand.

As one example, if you look at Bangladesh on a map, there really is only one massive city and even that's an illusion because it's not a modern city with densely packed condos and modern infrastructure. Instead, it's a place with sprawling, two-level houses and such. It seems so illogical that the population can be as high as they state.

I'm amazed though you never questioned China's population. Something I read here once was that they remind us that everything we heard about from Soviet Russia was a lie, but we're supposed to believe in the boasts from Communist China. I think we must assume everything that comes out of China is a lie. But by China lying about their population, it makes us inherently afraid, allowing them to continue to emasculate all of the Western countries and we willingly cede our souls and our will to action.

On the point of world overpopulation, I'd say that there never can be a population that threatens the balance of the earth itself, since as trite as it sounds, we are built upon the nutrients and resources of the world and if there are no spare nutrients to give to a pregnant woman to allow her to give birth, then she won't be able to give birth. Plus as you've stated in other threads, there is more food than ever before. Every year, crop yields increase. There's so much food they're actively working to find ways to use it for anything but feeding people. It's clear the earth is not suffering from population. If there was a time when population threatened to unbalance the earth, the earth would regulate itself by naturally lowering fertility rates in men and women, and we wouldn't even notice especially since most of this would be occurring in the poorer countries.

As another example related to the fears of over-population, they tell us over and over that fresh water will become scarce and may even disappear entirely. Yet didn't we all learn that matter cannot be created or destroyed? The amount of water will always stay the same, though sometimes it may also spend time as steam or ice or urine, etc. Humans are merely another conduit for water to pass through. But it will not vanish.

As another example related to the fears of over-population, they tell us over and over that fresh water will become scarce and may even disappear entirely. Yet didn't we all learn that matter cannot be created or destroyed? The amount of water will always stay the same, though sometimes it may also spend time as steam or ice or urine, etc. Humans are merely another conduit for water to pass through. But it will not vanish.

I think what they really mean to do to us with such language is put us in a prison.

For example, Western places will note the lack of hygiene in an area. Instead of fixing it or simply educating people about how to fix it, putting the smallest amount of time into research, Coca Cola can come in, sit on a place and sell their improved water with their expensive industrial machinery. We don't know what they even do, since it's a trade secret. They could do everything from reverse osmosis to simply boiling it, depending on a chemical test.

I am not saying everyone needs to go around doing everything for free, but it's obvious human beings value things differently from companies. And receiving love and human kindness are valuable 'payments' for people that don't involve money. But what can a corporation or government do with kindness? They will simply see this, as psychopaths do, as an invitation to take advantage. So companies needlessly take even more advantage over the already disadvantaged and they don't value things like friendship of the local populace as payment, whereas you or I would certainly enjoy the benefits of friendship, and if we were in a position to help, we probably would do so free of charge, because why the fuck wouldn't you help a diseased and starving population if you had the power to do so?

The legal corporation is by definition a greed machine; it is just greedy and they will only do a favor for a disproportionate advantage over the needy. It is in an invitation to everyone employed by the company to ignore their own human needs and the human needs of others in exchange for borrowed corporate wealth.

Then a government, ignoring this disgusting action entirely, instead of putting the place on trial for extorting a native population, they make some impotent announcement that goes something like, "This other poor place in India is running out of clean water. What shall we do about it?"

It seems this is basically the government not asking people to help but merely drawing attention so that aggressive mercenary like corporations can come in and take the resource, keep the secrets of improvement for themselves, and so on. If a charity type group comes in first, the corporations are usually bitter about this and will try to squeeze that group out so they can make a profit instead of quenching thirst or feeding hunger.

Water isn't scarce, but the secrets of hygiene are kept in the hands of governments in order to control the health of the populations they suck blood from.

Ataraxia » December 1st, 2016, 2:47 am wrote:I've also believed for a while that world populations are invented out of thin air. Who can ever know the truth? To me, it comes down to two main principles in play. Firstly, that if you invent a person born into a life of poverty in some poor country, you can then receive more charity from industrialized countries for that person. So why would you ever not lie? Fake people also allows for a larger, fake economy, upon which you can then invest and acquire fake money. It's all smoke and mirrors. Secondly, the bigger you state your population is, the more of a 'main player' you can assume on the world stage. Those very same countries that you cite like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, NIgeria are all perfect examples of this, notably also with them starting up space programs or acquring the power to make nuclear bombs/reactors. All these lies go hand in hand.

As one example, if you look at Bangladesh on a map, there really is only one massive city and even that's an illusion because it's not a modern city with densely packed condos and modern infrastructure. Instead, it's a place with sprawling, two-level houses and such. It seems so illogical that the population can be as high as they state.

I'm amazed though you never questioned China's population. Something I read here once was that they remind us that everything we heard about from Soviet Russia was a lie, but we're supposed to believe in the boasts from Communist China. I think we must assume everything that comes out of China is a lie. But by China lying about their population, it makes us inherently afraid, allowing them to continue to emasculate all of the Western countries and we willingly cede our souls and our will to action.

On the point of world overpopulation, I'd say that there never can be a population that threatens the balance of the earth itself, since as trite as it sounds, we are built upon the nutrients and resources of the world and if there are no spare nutrients to give to a pregnant woman to allow her to give birth, then she won't be able to give birth. Plus as you've stated in other threads, there is more food than ever before. Every year, crop yields increase. There's so much food they're actively working to find ways to use it for anything but feeding people. It's clear the earth is not suffering from population. If there was a time when population threatened to unbalance the earth, the earth would regulate itself by naturally lowering fertility rates in men and women, and we wouldn't even notice especially since most of this would be occurring in the poorer countries.

As another example related to the fears of over-population, they tell us over and over that fresh water will become scarce and may even disappear entirely. Yet didn't we all learn that matter cannot be created or destroyed? The amount of water will always stay the same, though sometimes it may also spend time as steam or ice or urine, etc. Humans are merely another conduit for water to pass through. But it will not vanish.

Bangladesh is glaring questionable data to me. I think one way the hoax is protected is that most people do not have a good handle on numbers, as evidenced by difficulties in managing their own personal finances. To people without a good handle on numbers, 1.5 million, 15 million and 150 million people, are all 'a lot of people'.

If the official numbers they were taught said that the Netherlands had 150 million people, and they visited the Netherlands where it is a densely populated nation, I believe most people would never question the official numbers. They would go into a high density area of the Netherlands and seeing row houses and so forth, it would 'confirm' in their minds that this nation is packed full of people. Likewise I wouldn't be surprised if Bangladesh has 15 million people, mainly in that big river delta city you mentioned.

With some nations like a Japan, the official number of citizens may not be perfect, but it seems a reasonable estimate in light of other data. Like new car sales, electrical consumption, the many different Japanese made products that I see, clear internal markets for things like high end electronics and video games.

The Chinese population question is a very important one that I have been shying away from. My 'gut' feeling is they have in the range of 750-850 million people. Which is enormous, yet also 500-600 million less than official estimates(or near to 10% of alleged global population). I believe China is closing the gap between the real and the official numbers by presenting the one child policy as more sweeping than it really is. So say the real Chinese population is growing at 10 million a year(primarily through increased life expectancy), but the government says the population grows at 6 million during that year. Through this way they can narrow the gap year by year, until 100 years from now, their official numbers are a reasonable estimate.

Thinking about the Chinese example it shows why the deception is done. When China was weak, it wanted to elicit fear through an enormous population. It also wanted to make an argument for why it should have a greater say in the UN, than otherwise. (although I note the IMF, Worldbank and Co., are done based on hard currency loans, which can't really be faked).

Now that China is not weak, they do not have a reason to lie. Today no one doubts that China could have an advanced weapons program, or that the country deserves/commands a seat at the table for all important global issues. Transparency and credibility with statistics are a show of strength, like in finance and trade.

For example, Western places will note the lack of hygiene in an area. Instead of fixing it or simply educating people about how to fix it, putting the smallest amount of time into research, Coca Cola can come in, sit on a place and sell their improved water with their expensive industrial machinery. We don't know what they even do, since it's a trade secret. They could do everything from reverse osmosis to simply boiling it, depending on a chemical test.

I think this is a huge reason science in general has become stuck in many areas with questionable theories. I have a feeling that at the highest levels in the big corporations there is a great deal of secret knowledge. I know there are many trade secrets that big corporations are not patenting, as then it would be widely known.

I am not saying everyone needs to go around doing everything for free, but it's obvious human beings value things differently from companies. And receiving love and human kindness are valuable 'payments' for people that don't involve money. But what can a corporation or government do with kindness? They will simply see this, as psychopaths do, as an invitation to take advantage. So companies needlessly take even more advantage over the already disadvantaged and they don't value things like friendship of the local populace as payment, whereas you or I would certainly enjoy the benefits of friendship, and if we were in a position to help, we probably would do so free of charge, because why the fuck wouldn't you help a diseased and starving population if you had the power to do so?

I have noticed that people as individuals act like you are saying. And even corporations or government programs where the founder is still running the show, they act with the beliefs of the founder, which are generally good and noble goals. However, when the founder eventually dies, the careerists take over, and it also goes from one guy in control to sort of a Borg like uncaring 'group' of decision makers. And the sole direction of the organization turns from whatever the original mission was, to just wanting more money and power for the people working in the organization.

I am honestly not sure how to stop this. It seems societies come out of a disastrous period, and have visionary people rise up and build new institutions in society, and go so far, then those founders die and careerists take over and the descent begins.

Julius Caesar attempted to get around this in his will, by handing total power for the Roman Empire to Augustus Caesar who was a young relative. Julius Caesar believed he had both the intellect and the unflinching belief that the Roman government was mainly for the benefit of the people of Rome.

Its sort of funny, but when I was reading about Rome, if I just changed the names of the people/places, it could be mistaken for the US or EU today. Because since people are the same in both cases, we come to the same issues.